Rebecca Watson talked about the claims that the G-spot does not exist in a recent episode of the podcast "The sceptic's guide to the universe".

She pointed out several flaws in the methods used in the study, including that it was based on self-reporting by the participants i.e. they are assumed to all be having equal sex lives and all be equally interested in exploring their own bodies - which is something that not all women are, depending on their cultural and religious backgrounds.

_________________________
While having never invented a sin, I'm trying to perfect several.

I get varying degrees of pleasure from sex. Usually depends on the man and my mood. My own limited understanding of women who consistently don't/can't have an orgasm is that they may not be involved enough. I think good sex is more like a conversation than a lecture.

This really does sum it up. The "G"-spot should be renamed the "B"-spot, as in brain. Sexual excitement begins and slowly builds in the mind first. Atmosphere is key. If she is to have a toe-curling orgasm, she must first be forced to drop the innumerable things on her mind and allow herself to be pulled into that place where her body begins to really rise and respond. With the right tools, this can happen ANYTIME. One must create a Total Environment.

For men, the mind simply sparks and starts the furnace burning. Once on, all attention is quickly diverted to physical sensation. In both male and female, the switch to a focused physical experience begins the path to orgasm. As it happens faster in men - they achieve orgasm much earlier.

Women, unfortunately, were designed to achieve orgasm after men as the actions of her muscular contractions during orgasm create a sort of suction that pulls ejaculate further back into the vagina and toward the external cervical os, thereby improving the chances of conception.

Rebecca Watson talked about the claims that the G-spot does not exist in a recent episode of the podcast "The sceptic's guide to the universe".

Great! So NOW what am I supposed to be looking for.

Don't despair, she attacked the study that claimed it did not exist and came up with a number of other studies and possible theories that pointed to the possibility that there is a G-spot. For instance, anatomically it could turn out that the G-spot was actually the base of the clitoris and that means that it gets stimulated that way.

She also pointed out that there is a possibility that it is purely psychological, but that only means that there is no physical or genetic explanation, the results are still there.

I guess it fits in well with the Satanic philosophies "test everything" and "Satanism requires study"

_________________________
While having never invented a sin, I'm trying to perfect several.

I get varying degrees of pleasure from sex. Usually depends on the man and my mood. My own limited understanding of women who consistently don't/can't have an orgasm is that they may not be involved enough. I think good sex is more like a conversation than a lecture.

This really does sum it up. The "G"-spot should be renamed the "B"-spot, as in brain. Sexual excitement begins and slowly builds in the mind first. Atmosphere is key. If she is to have a toe-curling orgasm, she must first be forced to drop the innumerable things on her mind and allow herself to be pulled into that place where her body begins to really rise and respond. With the right tools, this can happen ANYTIME. One must create a Total Environment.

For men, the mind simply sparks and starts the furnace burning. Once on, all attention is quickly diverted to physical sensation. In both male and female, the switch to a focused physical experience begins the path to orgasm. As it happens faster in men - they achieve orgasm much earlier.

Women, unfortunately, were designed to achieve orgasm after men as the actions of her muscular contractions during orgasm create a sort of suction that pulls ejaculate further back into the vagina and toward the external cervical os, thereby improving the chances of conception.

I would agree with Shade and your assessments.

I would add, though, that sincerity on the part of the male is also as important, or at least important for me, in the sense that if his passion does not seem genuine I feel...insulted. I'm offended that they assume I cannot tell when they're going through a checklist of what they think I want in order to orgasm.

It's not that a man has to be slow and romantic and gentle every time, as I am definitely not referring to the cliche understandings of what a "good" lover is; the sexual particulars vary according to mood, fetishes, dynamic, location, etc. It is that a man has to genuinely want to please me, and not pass the time with foreplay just waiting for a chance to be a selfish lover (as if they're checking on a timer). One cannot generate passion by atmosphere alone.

There is a difference between a man who secretly wants to be selfish (and resents your slow ignition) and a man who truly cares about a woman's pleasure.

I would add, though, that sincerity on the part of the male is also as important, or at least important for me, in the sense that if his passion does not seem genuine I feel...insulted. I'm offended that they assume I cannot tell when they're going through a checklist of what they think I want in order to orgasm.

Silly me. I assumed that if a man were to create an atmosphere conducive to a woman's pleasure, it automatically implied that he must;therefore be experiencing passion for his chosen mate. Not so, as you pointed out.

Yes, checklists are bad.

To clarify: Creating an atmosphere AND exuding genuine passion are important ingredients in orgasm-inducing lovemaking. I assumed because I do, everyone must -shame on me.

Clearly you've never been on the receiving end of some awkward paint-by-numbers lovemaking, where the guy's thinking, "I lit a candle, I told her she's pretty, now I can fuck like a jackrabbit!!!"

...or something like that. I mean, I've heard that's how it can go.

Seriously, the more I grow up (and have better sex) the more I see other peoples' sex lives as clumsy manifestations of their insecurities, something they kinda like but perhaps so not so much love, or sex is enmeshed with so much bullshit they are incapable of truly letting go.

Satanists are different in many ways, but I think the majority of people are not having fun with sex. They are instead trying to prove something.

If I'm too tired to have sex, then I just tell my boyfriend the truth, I don't see any point in lying to the person I love most.

I differ here... I think faking it can be a tool of lesser magic, useful depending on the cicumstances. I don't think there's anything wrong with being dishonest with a loved one, if they would appreciate your intentions behind that dishonesty.

Of course there are times when I too am that tired that I just have to say sorry buddy, but not tonight..

But there are times when (even though very tired, or not in the mood) I know he really wants to, it may have been a while and he needs some intimacy, that I do want to make him feel good even if I'm not in the mood for sex. In that case I'd rather make love and fake my enthusiasm (and orgasm if required) than just be honest and tell him I'm not up for it and want to sleep. And often... if I pretend to be enjoying myself immensely, I actually DO end up having a great time

Then if they know your intentions for being dishonest and can appreciate them then why even bother lying in the first place?

I mean if they know you're being dishonest yet appreciate your intentions wouldn't it be easier to just tell them up front in the first place? Unless you have issues with expressing yourself to a loved one of course. It is not what you say but how you say it that really matters. Just my opinion.